HOARDING FEES

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXIV, 2 April 1930, Page 5

HOARDING FEES

IN BOROUGH OF RICHMOND

APPLICATION TO QUASH BY-LAW

DECISION RESERVED

An application by de Lacy Ltd. (Mr J. Kerr) against the Mayor and councillors and citizens of the Borough of .Richmond (Mr Glasgow) was before His Honour Mr Justice 'Kennedy in the Supreme Ceurt 'to-day, when Mr Kerr moved for an order quashing clause 32 of the by-laws of the Richmond Borough Council 1929, relating to hoarding fees upon the ground that the by-law is invalid by reason of the fact that the licence fee charged by subsection b of the same by-law is excessive. Mr Kerr called.

Edward J. Thomas, clerk to the borough council, who identified a copy of the by-laws. The cost of administrating the by-law regarding licensed hoardings in the borough was practically nil. The hoarding erected by de Lacy was the first one of its kind erected in the borough; and he took it that the object of the by-law was to prevent hoardings. To Mr Glasgow: The object of the council in making the by-law was to preserve the national beauty of the township. This was all the evidence, and legal argument was then taken. Mr Kerr submitted that a reasonable fee was such sum as would recuperate the council in administering the by-law; and quoted authorities in support thereof. The fee charged in Richmond was £2 per 100 superficial feet. Counsel stated that the fee charged was the highest in New Zealand. The usual fee in cities was 10s and.in some places the size of Richmond no fee was charged at all. Mr Glasgow contended that in judging of the reasonableness or ollinrwi.se of the fee the object for which it was fixed must be considered Counsel also submitted that the council have power to absolutely prohibit the erection of hoardings : also that as a means of prohibiting hoardings, the council was entitled to charge a prohibitory fee. Counsel quoted authorities in support of his contentions. After Mr Kerr had replied His Honour intimated that he would reserve judgment. '